Another note on “Creation redescription”

Another note on “Creation redescription”:

Take out blank sheet of paper.

Draw lines across the paper, from one side to the other, vertically, horizontally, diagonally. This is division without separation.

Cut the paper along all the lines, but keep the pieces touching like pieces of a puzzle. This is separation without exclusion.

Now remove one section of paper from the others. This is exclusion.

On that removed section of paper, draw horizontal, vertical and diagonal lines.

Cut the paper into bits. Arrange them how you like. If you wish, you can make little duplicates of the cut bits. If you wish you can exclude what doesn’t fit, and remove them from the other scraps, because they are irrelevant.


We can if, we wish, take all the original cut up bits, including those we removed and reconstruct the section like a puzzle. We can restore the section to a state of defined finitude.

We can, if we wish, continue by placing that restored section back with the others, and restore the paper. Imagine a great puzzle made of pieces which are themselves little puzzles.

Alternatively, we can keep our little construction made of cut up bits of the removed section of paper. We can say one of the bits is the ultimate bit and forget all the others. Or we can say the section of paper is not a section of anything, but the whole sheet of paper.

A note on “Creation redescription”

A note on “Creation redescription”: This was written in response to a question I’ve been intuiting in the background of Sholem’s Major Trends. For an Infinite Creator, creation is necessarily a subtractive process. It creates by negation. This is the fundamental insight of tzimtzum, the heart of panentheism. But (not to get too Hegelian) but negation does not negate or exclude or subtract from infinity, it negates, excludes, subtracts within infinity, as an intrinsic part of infinity. Oblivion is essential to infinity, and nihilitude is a fine name for it. Nihilitude makes finitude possible and actual within infinitude.

Nihilitude can be seen as a distributed tzimtzum. In Sloterdijk’s idiom, where tzimtzum suggests a grand cosmic sphere of divine nothingness, nihilitude suggests a whole spherology of scales, of granularities. Nihilitude can be a foam, or a bubble, or a globe, or an everything-sized universe or even a more-than-everything-size metaphysics.

As a designer, I constantly encounter piercing of foam-scale nihilitude — “oh, wow, I never noticed that!” — “oh, I see what you mean, and now I can’t see it any other way!” — “Oh, I heard it differently, but now I’m hearing it your way!” — “This. Changes. Everything.” — We paper these events over with opaque language. But I see and cannot unsee them as everyday minor miracles.

I didn’t always see things this way. The meta-event of coming to see these everyday surprises as minor miracles came as a piercing of a slightly larger bubble-scale nihilitude. It was a paradigm shift — a localized conversion experience, that jostled my overall enworldment but did not burst it.

But several times in my life I have burst my enworldment. My ultimate, outermost heaven-dome was pierced. An epiphany irrupted into what seemed given, and forced a rippling comprehensive transformation of everything-all-at-once. The first time it happened it seemed like truth itself had exploded into what had been pure enslavement to convention, and that was true as far as it went.

But when this happened again, and then again, an even stranger epiphany pierced of an even vaster sphere of nihilitude.

Etcetera, ad infinitum, ex nihilo.


The creativity that we know is combination of givens we have passively received.

The nothing we know is just exclusion from a finite everything that, to us, seems limitless because it is bounded by oblivion, a nothingness that is absence precisely when it is present.

And the infinity we know is the endless concatenation of whatever givens we have been given, ex nihilo, and therefore with nothing beyond it.

Letterpress magic trick

As promised, I letterpress printed my ASCII Mercury sigil.

Good thing, too! — because after writing “Creation redescription” I was startled to discover that my divine Boolean operations map with uncanny barnumite neatness to this configuration: Plus, divine Andness. Zero, divine Notness. Open parenthesis, divine Orness.

I decided to print the sigil as the oblivion object in a blind spot demonstration, which exemplifies nihilitude (a present nothing which leaves nothing missing, showing very clearly how blindness is the furthest thing from darkness.) It is by nihilitude that the Trickster tricks, so I cannot imagine a better vanishing-appearing figure than Mercury, the trickster angel, for this vanishing act transpiring on my little magic paper strip.

Instructions.

  1. Orient the strip so the asterisk is on the left, and the Mercury sigil is on the right.
  2. Hold the strip arm’s length from your face.
  3. Close your left eye, and keep your right eye open.
  4. Focus your eye on the asterisk, while focusing your attention on the sigil.
  5. Maintaining this dual focus, slowly move the strip closer and closer to your open right eye.
  6. Notice when the sigil is no longer there, absent, while leaving no trace of absence.
  7. Say: “Nihilitude: Nothing is present so nothing is missing.”
  8. Remember that all but the tiniest sliver of reality is submerged in nihilitude. (“Exnihilated”)
  9. Thank God for the shelter of nihilitude, which is the precious gift of moral existence.
  10. Seal it with “Amen.”

There comes a perilous point in a person’s life when the decision can no longer be evaded or postponed:

Either seem sane, or be sane.

Creation redescription

From Absolute One

Pure Infinitude to Articulate Infinitude (through definitude, divine Withness)

Articulate Infinitude to Defined Finitude (through nihilitude, divine Orness)

Defined Finitude to Formational Beings (through finitude, divine Notness)

Formational Beings to Material Actualization (through combination, divine Andness)

From Unformed Matter,

Inarticulate, undefined, unformed, at one with

Absolute One


The passage above is not translation. It describes in pure English what I have been shown in Hebrew.


+0(

Jacob’s Lattice

In the Jacob’s Ladder figure (which a designer might be tempted to call Jacob’s Lattice), four Sefirot appear in vertical arrangement, each a world, overlapping at Malchut-Keter.

The terminal consummation at the foot of the world above (its fully realized Malchut) initiates the world below (that world’s Keter). Each world is suspended between an inheritance and a bequeathal, a coronation (Keter) and a kingdom (Malchut). The King is dead; long live the King.

Each world is the emergence of a category of transpiration. A mode of transpiring transpires.

In Beriah, creation transpires, starting from an inheritance of a consummate emanated world, Malchut of Atzilut, culminating in a consummate creational world (Malchut of Beriah) where formation can commence (Keter of Yetzirah). Here transpires creatio ex nihilo: something from nothing.

In Yetzirah, formation transpires, starting from an inheritance of a consummate created world, Malchut of Beriah, culminating in a consummate formational world (Malchut of Yetzirah) where actualization can commence (Keter of Assiyah). Here transpires formatio ex spiritu: something from something.

In Assiyah, actuality transpires, starting from an inheritance of a consummate formal world, Malchut of Yetzirah, culminating in a consummate actual world (Malchut of Assiyah). Here transpires ars ex formatione: thing from something — first, inception of an idea, then its unfolding as multiple possibilities, then development as one specific possibility, then finally to full actualization as a voiced word or physical act or artifact — a material actuality.

If material is invited to reciprocate — as it should, for this is the material dialogue of craft — the influence ripples back upwards. Material responds to actions, actions respond to form, form responds to creation, and presses into inconceivability, impossibility — nihilo

…And sometimes a response issues from the emanative beyond — a divine echo of creation, revelation from nowhere, revelatio ex nihilo, also known as inspiration. Some shocking, inconceivable impossibility is conceived as a given possibility.

And when this happens, two things happen. The qualitative meaning of infinity is experienced directly as radical surprise. And the person who receives the surprise is transformed, sometimes a little, sometimes a lot, occasionally completely, and neither they nor the world they now inhabit is ever the same again.

Conversion is reenworldment ex nihilo. With a sufficient number of reenworldments, a person might become metaconverted to a world of enworldment, where reenworldment ex nihilo is permanently possible and forever expected. Such a person can never take nothingness, inconceivability or impossibility at face value ever again, for nothingness is the tender mask of infinity, worn for our own fragile finitude.

Let us call this metaconversion exnihilism.


Each one in One

Each one of us is the image and likeness of the One.

But each one is merely image and likeness, a self-similar part of the One.

The essence of the One is absolutely unique all-inclusive infinitude. Only the One is absolutely unique, all-inclusive and infinite.

Each one is finite, unique solely by other-exclusion, and has a given finite appearance of centrality within an all-containing everything given through the negative element of infinitude, nihilitude.

Nihilitude defines finitude against absorption in the exnihilating infinitude of the One. The layered protecting garments that bless finite beings with the possibility of enworldment are woven from the divine negative substance, nihilitude.

It is easy to confuse Nothingness with the Infinite, because the infinite One against whom our finite one is defined is concealed in nihilitude. But nihilitude is only the skin of the Infinite One, relative only to some particular finite one. The nothingness comprehends only some particular one, not the One.


Some of us despise our own finitude. We want to transcend it in order to escape it. We want to lose our finitude and be re-absorbed back into the infinite. Others hate whatever reminds us that we are merely one, not One. We try to annihilate whatever and whoever punctures the thin skin of our universal everything-that-is. Whether that everything-that-is happens to be objective scientific fact, or an absolutist religious doctrine, or a socio-psycho-physio-historic theory does not matter — whatever or whoever defies our universal gnosis cannot be. Some of us are just lonely and do not want to be alone inside our own finite one. We long for another to be one with us. Or we subscribe to something universally good. We try to become one with a collective one so vast and grand that it seems, in comparison with our own one, to approximate One.

We must learn to want our finitude. We must learn to savor inexhaustible moreness, and its practical manifestation, inexhaustible surprise. This requires us to intuit and love the nihilitude that protects our finitude and the finitude of others. It is from this nihilitude that creation and revelation come to us from the Infinite One, in small enough quality and magnificence that we may grow toward the infinite without exnihilating into it, altogether.


Years ago, a strange friend shared a quote with me in a characteristically strange way, which, it turned out, was a poetically simple expression of this truth.

Postperennialism

Perennialism (also known as Traditionalism and Sophia Perennis) compares traditional religions to paths up a mountain. At the foot of the mountain, the paths are separated by many miles. They converge with altitude, and eventually they meet at the summit. The lower divergent understandings of the tradition are exoteric. The higher, convergent understandings are esoteric. The higher the esoteric understanding, the more one understands the depths of one’s own tradition and its transcendent unity with the others.

I was raised Unitarian-Universalist, so this one summit with universally valid paths to it from diverse points of departure resonates. It harmonizes with both U’s of my childhood brainwashing and with the tolerance gospel it preached. But Perennialism provides a depth, seriousness and respect for religiosity that I felt was lacking among the UUs I’ve known, and leftists in general, including religious leftists.

But Perennialism also had some ideas that I found hard to accept. One, I believe, was an artifact of Islam, which claimed that no new traditions were possible after Mohammad. According to Guenon and Schuon, Mohammad was the last prophet who founded what was necessarily the last valid tradition, an idea I reject for multiple reasons. Another is an eschatology of the Fall, which accounts for why no new traditions are possible. Another is that only strict enduring adherence to a traditional religion is a path to esoteric realization. And I dislike the authoritarian politics that normally follow from these beliefs.

Today I realized that what I reject is Perennialism’s exoteric doctrine. The eschatology, historiosophy and practical prescriptions are not essential or even necessary extensions to the esoteric doctrine, and I do not find them to have the same overwhelming persuasive force. I do not reject any of them entirely, and I might find them more persuasive later. But from where I stand, these ideas seem like a connecting belt across converging but as-yet-unconverged exoteric paths, not to be confused with the convergence at the crown.

Shit index

So here we are. Shit theory’s growing taxonomy is up to seven shits:

  • Chickenshit — “tedious nonsense — all the formalities, procedures, reports, busywork and minutiae that ruins everyday existence — that seem like it ought to add up to something important but never does..”
  • Bullshit — “meaning-mongering nonsense — notions that seem overflowing with promise, benevolence and idealistic intention — but which can never be achieved, or even put into practice.”
  • Horseshit — “malevolent nonsense — artifacts of ignorant, paranoid resentment meant to answer the eternal question ‘who can we blame for this shitshow?’”
  • Birdshit — “meta nonsense — the little condescending golden turds of pseudowisdom dropped from above by high-flying assholes, soaring on the conceit that abstract theorizing somehow raises us above the stubborn concreteness of the human condition..”
  • Dogshit — “incompetent nonsense — the result of nondesigners who think they are designers trying to design and bungling it, and then repeating the bungling as rapidly and randomly as possible.”
  • Apeshit — “weaponized nonsense — any lump of ideas picked up and hurled as a projectile.”
  • Batshit — “crazy nonsense — the byproduct of an urgent and failed need to make sense of things that are not even real — at least according to all you “sane” people.”

What else is there, even? Catshit? Ratshit? I don’t even know if they’re needed. I think this might be a complete list. If so shit studies reached its apex within 72 hours of its founding. That’s a pretty squat shitheap, given the overwhelming quantity of shit out there.

Batshit

Another extremely important shit species that deserves analysis is batshit.

When someone believes things beyond belief, and believes them elaborately, intricately, extravagantly and urgently, we call that person batshit crazy.

Often, these beyond-belief beliefs are literally about the beyond. They are speculative. But the speculation has taken on a life of its own, and is no longer obviously speculation about reality. The speculations have detached and become a standalone batshit world, which feels way more real and interesting than whatever that other world was.

Batshit is sometimes confused with bullshit, because batshit is nonsense that never touches ground and has no practical effectiveness. But unlike bullshit, batshit is believed, intensely and sincerely. And while both bullshit and batshit fail to translate ideas into effective practices, bullshit never tries, whereas batshit ideas lead directly to batshit practices.

And it is also easy to confuse batshit with birdshit, in that it flies around in the sky. But where birdshit flies into the sky to get a better, loftier, critical look at the ground in order to shit all over it, batshit is trying to fly further than the sky, and the batshit produced in the effort is innocent byproduct, forgotten as soon as it falls into that nowhere known as solid ground.

“Batshit” is crazy nonsense — the byproduct of an urgent and failed need to make sense of things that are not even real — at least according to all you “sane” people.

Apeshit

I mentioned apeshit in passing in an earlier shit theory installment. But it deserves its own definition.

When we human primates get really super-fucking angry, something horrible and funny happens to us. We lose access to the newfangled lobes of our hypertrophied brains, we begin to resemble our animal kingdom relatives.

We do what they do. We grab whatever is closest at hand and fling at whoever has infuriated us. We go apeshit.

Shit studies scholars call whatever is flung in this state apeshit. Whatever kind of shit it started out as, once it is picked up and hurled, it is now classified as apeshit.

“Apeshit” is weaponized nonsense — any lump of ideas picked up and hurled as a projectile. The point of it is not truth, or ideas, or anything resembling communication. It is pure animal speech act.

Apeshit is not about content. Blunt force impact is the message. It is about impact, and a disgusting, degrading mess to clean up.

Dogshit

I was shooting the shit with my brother Scott, and he raised a crucial question. When would I address the issue of dogshit?

How about now?

I am a designer by profession, which is why I am angry nearly all the time.

One of the worst things about this being a designer, besides the usual chickenshit, is one particularly noxious bit of bullshit, that I’m pretty sure nobody else has to deal with.

That bullshit is the deeply untrue insistence that “everyone is a designer.”

I don’t see other professionals running around assuring everyone that they can do their job.

And this bullshit invites people to do our jobs instead of us. Tragically, thanks to the maleficent magic of metacognitive incompetence, aka Dunning-Kruger, aka double-ignorance, they are unable to notice how much worse at design they are than designers.

This happened with “design thinking” when business executives actually believed designers and decided that learning a bunch of chickenshit techniques would help them solve a bunch of bullshit problems. “HMW we waste our time leveraging methods we have no business messing with, on problems nobody really cares about?” Design Thinking, that’s how!

And it happened again with product management. A bunch of clever, incompetent jacks-of-all-trades with MBAs who learned to talk like engineers decided to reinvent strategic design from scratch as if design never existed because this was a job far too important to let designers do.

The result of these efforts is pure dogshit.


“Dogshit” is incompetent nonsense — the result of nondesigners who think they are designers trying to design and bungling it, and then repeating the bungling as rapidly and randomly as possible. They call the repetition “iteration” and their bungling “failing fast” or “moving fast and breaking things” or “discovery”, missing the point that things are supposed to move steadily toward improvement, not just spasm every which way in perpetual brokenness.


I suppose we could expand the definition of dogshit to cover more takeovers of professions by hordes of incompetents. We could discuss how ideologues have invaded the humanities, or activists have taken over journalism, education and entertainment media, professional marketers have displaced artists, ?and just about everybody and their cousin cranking out vibecoded dogshit apps… ?and so on.

But I am the author of Shit Theory, and as far as I’m concerned, I’m nailing the shit out of it.

Birdshit

My friend Jim graciously read my post on Shit Theory.

But it left him with a question: “Do you really believe Shit Theory can carry us over this rising flood of shit?”

I answered, “Of course not. That claim is total bullshit.”

“Nothing will save us,” I added. “We are all going to die.”

But then it hit me: My claim was not bullshit. It was something else entirely.

Jim had identified an entire new species of shit: birdshit.

My claim that understanding Shit Theory will somehow save us from drowning in shit is not only untrue, it dumps an entirely new ocean of shit into the already unfathomably shitty depths of bullshit, chickenshit and horseshit.

Here is the truth: No theoretical understanding of a shitty practical situation does shit to help us fix it. And believing that it does only makes things worse.

We are in deep shit, and Shit Theory’s birdshit claim of making it all better through the power of understanding only deepens the deep shit we are in.

The only way Shit Theory makes anything better is the feeble, overrated medicine of laughter. Any claims to value beyond cheap laffs is birdshit.


Let’s get scientific and define birdshit.

“Birdshit” is meta nonsense — the little condescending golden turds of pseudowisdom dropped from above by high-flying assholes, soaring on the conceit that abstract theorizing somehow raises us above the stubborn concreteness of the human condition.

On the contrary, assholes: nothing could be more essential to the human condition than the notion that our own high-flying notions have enlightened us and elevated us to transcendent heights above the shitshow below.

That shitshow is largely a shitheap of precisely this kind of birdshit, yours and everyone else’s.

You are the furthest thing from above it — you and your critiques, insights and true truth are just more birdshit on the shitheap you survey from your aerial view. And then your wings get weary and you have to return to your shitshow roost to be observed and birdshit on by other high-flying know-it-alls.

And notice how useless your birdshit is on the concrete, practical ground, even to yourself.

Birdshitting is self-indulgent condescension, the pleasure of unclenching your sphincter, releasing the pressure and watching your lofty wisdom rain down and splatter upon the stooped heads of those stuck on the ground below. When you return to the ground, though, you go right back to participating in the whole shitshow. You belong to it, seek your fortune in it, endure swoop-n-poops from your superiors and mutter petty complaints about the unfairness of it all, just like every other asshole. And your golden birdshit insights serve only as souvenirs of superiority. But it isn’t even a consolation prize. Everyone’s got their little pile.


When we are full of birdshit, we think our high-flying insights resolve our problems, which disarms our critical vigilance and liberates us to make things exponentially stupider and worse.

Birdshit belongs to a grand old tradition of salvific magical beliefs, according to which believing some set of extra-true facts automatically purifies a believer’s heart, and qualifies them for perks and benefits of pureness-of-heart, including admission to paradise and subscription to prayer-answering services. Present your handful of priceless birdshit at the Heavenly Gates and St. Peter will let you in.

The birdshit belief-in-belief tradition lives on — thrives, even — in the allegedly secular world of psychotherapy, which is really just a belief in salvific scientististic beliefs. If you figure out why you are neurotic, that cures your neurosis, despite the manifest fact that you are even more neurotic, now, because, in addition to your original neurosis, which continues unabated, now you cannot stop compulsively talking about your neurosis and what caused it. Your autobiographical logorrhea is birdshit.

And since psychotherapy entered politics as social justice, we’re seeing an explosion of political social-scientistic birdshit.

A depressingly excellent example of birdshit is “the work” silly racist white ladies have loved doing for the last ten years. They sit around meditating, theorizing about how racist they are. They fixate on it, talk about it, lament it and resolve to micromanage all their behaviors — to take each and every racist obsessive-compulsion and correct it, usually by reversing it from what they really think and feel.

This, they believe, is an effective corrective to racism.

All this, so far, is birdshit.

But the inner work of birdshit never stays inner for long.

Industrial volumes of birdshit, in fact, are produced by all this inner work — valuable expert knowledge everyone needs to know, and agree with!

Because if birdshit is as extra-true as it needs to be to have its magical salvific effects, it must be so overwhelmingly true that it is self-evidently undeniable to all. Otherwise, it’s just an extra-strong opinion.

Unanimous belief is required. To accomplish this unanimity, cognitive-behavioral micromanagement is expanded beyond the sphere in inwardness to the inwardness of everyone else. And this cognitive-behavioral micromanagement is accomplished, of course through human resource chickenshit.

The justification for the chickenshit is bullshit. Everyone must ostentatiously recite the same bullshit, perform bullshit ritual acts, pretend to agree with bullshit. To prove all this bullshit was actually said and done — and not just bullshit — everyone is required to keep chickenshit records, file chickenshit reports and make chickenshit measurements proving it all worked, which it won’t because bullshit cannot be accomplished and chickenshit never accomplishes anything. Which means more chickenshit controls and measurements are needed to make the bullshit a reality.

And everyone hates this. They cannot understand how things could become this thoroughly, intricately, elaborately shitty purely by accident. Surely it must have been ingeniously engineered for maximum shittiness. And they resent the hell out of being controlled, hectored, bullied, henpecked, lied to and forced to lie. They want to defy it, fight it, destroy this bullshitty, chickenshitty system, and whatever shithead was responsible for engineering it. And now we have horseshit. And the horseshit confirms the birdshit which claimed it was there all along. And this justifies yet more chickenshit and bullshit, and counter-horseshit, and produces a real shitstorm.

This is what could be called the birdshit-to-bullshit-to-chickenshit-to-horseshit-to-more-chickenshit-and-bullshit-to-counter-horseshit-to-counter-horseshit-to-shitstorm pipeline.

Birdshit that claims to be above it all is what feeds the pipeline. It is the rainfall that quenches the earth, refreshes the springs and flows forth in a great river of utter shit. This is why we are in a world of shit, and why knowing where it all comes from is the first step in a long journey leading directly up our own assholes.

Shittheory.com

There was absolutely no chance that shittheory.com could be available, but I decided to check, anyway.

I am now the owner of shittheory.com.

Clearly, this is a sign from heaven.


Update: shitstudies.com is also available.

Destiny speaks.


Another update: blowjobstobedone.com is available, too?

My cup runneth over.

Precisely what it runneth over with is questionable, but it is certainly overflowing with something.

Polycentered declarations

The main difficulty I have with esoteric thought is this: I know from direct experience how effective esoteric thought structures are in the dissolution, coagulation, crystallization and stabilization our own souls (psyches) and, consequently, the givenness of the world. Comprehensive conversion — transformation of soul — is a perpetual possibility. This is not even open to doubt, because I’ve experienced conversion phenomena for decades. And people who dismiss this only demonstrate spiritual naivety paired with hubris.

I also know firsthand the role that symbols play in these soul transformations. Radically new truths following from such transformations often emerge first in visual images and diagrams that precede the ability to verbalize the new truth. And when words come, they first come as poetry. Only much later can explicit language be found, but this language still collects around the original structural, visual and poetic core. This genre of revelatory drawing, poetry and writing is hermetic. Again, people who dismiss these things as nonsense only reveal their own limitations.

And I believe that esoteric and normal religious practices can do the same things that thought can. Periodic services and ceremonies, rituals, prayers, forms of mediation as well as religious observances (mitzvot) integrated into everyday life can change or stabilize the givens of reality. And as Susanne Langer taught, our best art is continuous with these religious productions.

To be fully transparent, for me these are less core to my own religious life than thought and symbol work. But they are profoundly important to people in my life that I love most, and by participating in them and bringing my own symbology to my participation, I contribute denser, richer meaning to these practices and receive spiritual communion with others.

Prior to participation in a religious tradition, my spiritual isolation bordered on intolerable. This could be called religious alienation. (Despite what the spiritual-but-not-religious folks believe, serious spirituality craves community of faith. My strong hypothesis is that if this seems otherwise, a person’s spirituality already subsists in an unacknowledged community of faith, perhaps a political one.)

The challenge for me was finding a religious community whose general faith, symbology, practices and metaphysics could accommodate my own faith and its peculiar ways. I absolutely could not belong to any community with anti-intellectual tendencies. I could not belong where devotion or punctiliousness or inchoate mystical feelings of knowingness prevail, and condescendingly assume all religious thinking must be mere theology — a handmaiden of “real” religiosity, or an idle distraction from it.

I found my home in Judaism, where deep study is not thinking about religion, but is itself a core religious praxis on par with prayer. Since the destruction of the Temple and the loss of its material sacrifices, Judaism has sublimated sacrifice and become a radically hermeneutic religion, where lesser understandings are ritually sacrificed and burned on the altar of Machloket l’Shem Shamayim and freed to climb like smoke into the aether, so that insights can descend through the dissipated vapor, back into our souls for recirculation.

This is the religious life as I know it firsthand and very close secondhand.

If you want to know why in Heaven’s name I live a Jewish life, this is my best answer. I am grateful for the miraculous Jewish tradition, and what it has given me (and to all of us, if we are willing to feel the depth and magnitude of gratitude we owe it, instead of stealing these gifts like today’s fashionable anti-Jew “antizionist” prophets of horseshit). And having been adopted into this dysfunctional holy family, I love it in that same stormy, spastic way tight, loving, fucked-up families love — with warmth, fury, irritation, dismay, toughness and hope. And now whatever happens to Am Yisrael — pride, shame, pain, glory, awe, and everything between — directly in my own heart, soul and body, like it happened to me directly, like it happened to my child.

This is identity. It is being a living organ of a living supra-personal body. Anyone who thinks it is a social category imposed on us from without only knows half of the truth, and most very obviously know far less than half of this half.


This section is about what identity is — belonging as an organ of supra-personal being — and what identity is not, a social category that is assigned by oneself or another. It can be skipped, if it bores or offends.

Progressivism is an identity. What progressivists “identify as” is not. This identifying-as is only an expression of one’s Progressivist identity.

The same is true on the right. A great number of Tradcaths and Orthobros express their political identity through some requisite traditional religious devotion.

Progressivists who “identify as a Jew” mainly experience Jewish “identity” as a category assignment within their political identity. Like all members of their faith they are jealous of their category. But they feel directly and spontaneously only the triumphs and humiliations of Progressivism. The daily vicissitudes of the Democratic Party are more viscerally real to them than the existential struggles of Israel. To put it in the starkest terms, November 2024 was personally devastating, where October 2023 was a news story about something that happened far away to someone else.

With respect to the Jewish people — Am Yisrael — Progressivist “as a Jews” are like an estranged spouse with a new lover. Technically they remain married, but their heart belongs to someone new. They are, in fact, Jewish, and nobody can take that away, but they are faithlessly and soullessly Jewish.

They might have a lingering fondness for ethnic Jewishness, and they may feel occasional spasms of ownership, especially if they spot their spouse out in public with someone new (like me, for instance!). “That’s mine, not yours, you lame imposter!” But they have no commitment or loyalty. All that goes to Progressivism. And deep down they know their “as a Jew” identity, is conditional. They must regularly, vocally and explicitly betray their people. Their function is to be human proof-points that Jews, too, can be indifferent or hostile to Israel, and therefore that Anti-Zionism is not anti-Jewish. As long as they keep serving that function, they can be Progressivists in good standing. For now. If the need to renounce antisemitism disappears — and that seems likely — the “as a Jew” Jewish Progressivists will find themselves in the same boat as their disloyal ancestors — abruptly expelled and attacked as outsiders. This pattern has recurred in every European and Arab nation, which of fucking course was precisely why Zionism became necessary. That and two thousand plus years of oppression, persecution and deadly pogroms. To be clear, in this age of exaggeratedly reified metaphor, by “deadly” I mean intentional, non-figurative, non-rhetorical, literal, physical, biological life-ending deaths in large numbers. Folks like Scott Weiner who accuse Israel of genocide, but not enough to satisfy the insatiable hatred of Israel-haters should remember that kapos — even the most willing ones — only delayed their gassing and incineration.

This is how I understand and experience Jewish identity, and how I see it in relation to technically Jewish “as a Jew” Progressivists of Jewish ancestry.


Now I want to speak frankly about important doubts about esoterism, hermeticism and the like. These center on magical claims beyond effects on souls.

Here I have only secondhand knowledge.

To make matters worse, these claims conflict with my metaphysics. These ideas remain outside my faith, perhaps beyond my faith, cloaked in oblivion, as these things are before they reveal themselves ex nihilo.

All this might very well be beyond my reach in the same way my firsthand knowledge of spiritual transformation is beyond the experiential range of the as-yet unconverted or authentic Jewish identity is outside the experience of ethnically Jewish Progressivists.

And I do not mind showing my limits. I am who I am, and I have only come as far as I am today.

I will try to stay faithful to what I know while maintaining as much exnihilist humility as I can toward what may someday come to light. And I will try and re-try never to alienate anyone whose spiritual center is remote from mine.

I will, in other words, respectfully polycenter myself where I am: I, here, now.

And I, here, now believe — humbly and tentatively — that design does, in actuality, and even more in potentia, what magic (also) claims to do.

That is, design forms, reforms, maintains and repairs materials and souls together to instaurate enworldments capable of mediating infinite, finite and definite being. Design circulates the divine light through exchange of gifts.

I have written about design this way before, in a variety of ways, so I will leave things here, compact and opaque and pregnant with hope.

Presequence, consequence, richness

A statement is made in the nexus of two implicate meanings, one preceding it as an implicit question to which it is an answer, and another following it as every possible practical response implied in what is stated. To understand a statement is to understand both the presequent and consequent implicate meanings, together in one thrust of meaning.

Hermeneutic presequence — an implicit question, to which the statement is a response.

Pragmatic consequence — the full set of ramifying practical implication that follow from a statement.

The range of possible hermeneutic presequences and pragmatic consequences varies from philosophy to philosophy, and can be called its semantic scope. Semantic scope is the ideal set of every possible meaning a philosophy can attempt to express, however well or poorly it expresses them, and whether or not it actually makes the attempt.

Three important notes:

First, the range of possible meanings should not be confused with realities to which a meaning refers. The latter should be called metaphysical scope. A philosophy with large semantic scope might focus densely on a narrow metaphysical scope, and a philosophy with narrow semantic scope might extend itself across a vast metaphysical scope.

Second, there is no accessible superset of semantic scopes. Every semantic scope appears to itself to be the ultimate superset, and whatever stands beyond it lacks sense, and may, more often than not, really be nonsense. But claims of nonsense cannot be proven, especially if we take hermeneutic presequence seriously, as heirs of positivism rarely do.

Third, this framing distinguishes ontology from metaphysics. Ontology belongs to semantic scope, not to metaphysical scope.

A fourth note is even more important: The overlap of meanings and practical responses to meanings in realities, especially social realities (collaboratively generated), has a perceptible positive quality. Pluralism is not only an accommodation for many various solitary individuals, it makes shared realities more tangibly, richly real. In this richness we feel the presence of other souls and the value of this reality and its sharedness.

A corollary of the fourth note: If semantic scope is shared between people, this opens the way to expansion of metaphysical scope. Shared semantic scope enables showing and sharing more and more reality.

Kant’s glorious limits

I might need to go back and reread Critique of Pure Reason.

A great many of my core ideas came from this source, most of all my understanding of intuition. But strangely, I suspect that Kant underestimated the preconceptual, prelinguistic nature of intuition and its importance to our lives.

I also suspect — maybe recklessly — that Kant’s categories pertain most to what Husserl called the lifeworld. These categories are concepts necessarily universal to all humans beings. From these, all other concepts are derived.

But the conceptual derivations are motivated by myriad intuitions beyond our sensory perceptions.

And to complicate things, once we conceptualize our intuitions, we can intuit these second-order concepts and make second-order concepts of first-order concepts derived from the lifeworld. And these concepts and the symbols used to express them can also be intuitively connected, to make conceptual systems that can themselves be encapsulated as concepts. If I am not mistaken think this is the core of Peirce’s semiology.

Another possible divergence from Kant is my belief that human beings (or at least many of us) have a need to situate ourselves in something beyond ourselves (here, I believe, I’m still in agreement with him) that we are called not only to think about or acknowledge the impossibility of knowing — but somehow obligated to participate in this being. Closest to us are interpersonal and social realities.

I think many, but not all, human beings intuit these human relational realities in a direct way. (I know for a fact my wife intuits them very vividly and reliably.) Years ago I read an article by Jonathan Haidt where he suggested that Kant might have been on the autism spectrum. Autism appears to inhibit suprapersonal intuitions, and some have even essentialized autism as “mind-blindness” resulting in “absence of theory of mind”. This might account for why social categories were excluded from his table. But had he been more interpersonally intuitive he might never have produced his fantastically precise and elaborate philosophical system in the first place, so let us give thanks not only for Kant’s amazing abilities but also his blessed incapacities.

But I think these relational intuitions might register our situated relationship not only among other people but to being itself. The best metaphysics is not theoretical speculation, but rather articulations and conceptualizations of metaphysical intuitions. Metaphysical intuitions, of course bring us into spirituality and religious life and ideas. If we carry Kant’s conceptual moves with us into this domain of reality, we are now on Cassirer’s turf. I need to read more of him, too. Reading his great (maybe greater!) student Langer’s magnum opus Philosophy in a New Key completely changed my understanding of understanding (by showing me modes of understanding that are purely plastic or performative and beyond the grasp of explicit language) and prepared me for Latour. Another reason to feel grateful for Kant’s limitations: it left wonderful work for post-Kantians to do.

So many things to read! And I’m sitting here in this wonderful room with all these books around me, some of which I have read and loved and others electric with promise.